Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  April 15, 2019 4:00am-5:01am PDT

4:00 am
i think that i've said a lot already so thank you. >> thank you, commissioner busts on. first i want to say thank you and i do appreciate the effort that went into trying to look for a grocery or a supermarket that will be satisfied with the configuration that you have. i just have, you know, some questions in my mind, as the commissioner rosales indicated in her -- as part of her motion in december, what it would take to get a grocer to say yes. so i do not see any effort on trying to configure the layout so that those who were declining because of the layout, that it would be addressed.
4:01 am
i do appreciate the list of all of the grocers that were contacted and the reasons, the comments and the reasons why they declined. but i'm concerned that whoever was your listing agent or your organization, they don't walk around the five to seven block radius where your building is. and there's a grocery, three groceries within the area. they have been there for more than 20 years. there's one on bayside village by branon and there's one by liza plaza on salmon and there's one on howard and main. they've been there for more than 20 years. they have not been approached. they are small grocers, family owned just like woodland and they know the area, they know what products to stock, to support the needs of the neighborhood. they've been there for a long time. in fact, the rink building, which is the first b.m.r.
4:02 am
program in the south of market, they had been the first tenant that had been there. and i spoke with the manager and they have not been approached. why were they not approached? this could have been an opportunity for them to expand their businesses. they have been in this area for more than 20 years. they have three groceries and they have been meeting the needs. and i know that you reach out to about everybody but them, and they even know about it. and i talked to them yesterday. and so that's -- that's my other concern about, you know, trying to kind of find a way to get a grocery to say yes. and i know that the owner, the son of the owners, it's a family owned and the father passed away a couple years ago and it's not run by the kids, the children. and so he said that he would like to go visit. i think that went to visit the property yesterday because they
4:03 am
were looking at the opportunity of the grocery. so the other thing -- i know that one of the items here on the report also said that the population of the area would not support two groceries. i know that woodlands, it's sky high in their pricing and they offer valet parking and nobody uses it. there's no competition. so if you need, you know, milk or a dozen eggs then you have to go pay the price. but then there's r.j. markets that you can actually use and, you know, the pricing is -- is a lot lower. in fact, they said they have attracted new customers because woodland's pricing is very, very expensive. and that's their sales that have gone up. so there's the space, there's
4:04 am
the outreach to the community grocery stores who have the knowledge of the demographics of the community where your building is going to be, not being contacted. and there's actually another one over on howard and sixth, it's a minority-owned grocery store. and i know that the supervisor jane kim and i occasionally run into each other doing our shopping there. i can't remember the name right now. so there's at least two that i have at least identified. and the demographics and the growth of the neighborhood. i know that it's also said here that this is a city-wide problem. i get that. but what are we doing to resolve resolve, at least to find a solution to this problem. what are we doing to address that? are we going to wait for another developer to come up with a solution to the city-wide problem of the trends in retail. you know, this is something that we agreed upon and i get that
4:05 am
you did try your best but there's still some -- some missing actions that i felt that should have been done. did you want to speak? >> is it statements or questions? >> i'm making comments of my observation because, you know, report -- the report that i have, you know -- parking, parking, configuration of space, the responses are there. and what -- what did you do, what have you done to address this issue? this is a 2017 report from you, mr. shrum and i don't see any good faith effort in what was done to at least get a grocer to say yes. so that's my comments. if you want to respond, you're welcome to respond.
4:06 am
>> chaimondejar, i think that we responded about that. we maxed out on parking. that was approved as a maximum parking. and i will tell you that we asked -- because we have this -- that we have daily parking. at the paramount while there's parking for the residents in the garage, non-residents can come and there's a valet system and we were told that we cannot do that here. and there's a reason, there's a policy reason as i recall which is that this was not -- this was supposed to be a neighborhood residential use. but i'm just telling you that we were told that you cannot do that. that might have helped, i'm not saying that it was determinative. so at least in parking i think we really did ask or tried to do anything that we could possibly do on parking. in fairness on the stores that
4:07 am
you mentioned, i don't know this, so i plead guilty to that, but it's conceivable -- these are probably like 2,000, 2,500-square-foot small stores and they're not 15,000 to 17,000-square-foot stores. so i can't debate anything that you said. whether that would translate into a new building of that size, i have my doubts. but it's true, we didn't reach out to them. but i don't know that that translates and that's possibly why with the brokers and that everybody didn't do that. >> chair mondejar: yes, commissioner rosales. >> commissioner rosales: i had a couple questions. the vote was 4-4. we heard one speaker give us some insight as to the -- one group of four, which was in
4:08 am
favor of -- of the resolution here, in favor of the developer. so do we know what the other four c.a.c. members, the ones that voted against, what their thoughts were or their votes? i'm sorry? >> chair mondejar: we have one -- >> commissioner rosales: speaking for herself, yes, yes, we had one pro that we had and one con, if you will, but my understanding is that those were individual -- individual commentary. >> christina johnson did speak and she did vote against terminating the obligation. she was one of the four. you know, the primary reasons that the c.a.c. brought up were, you know, number one, there's just a need for a grocer so they feel that there aren't a lot of other spaces in the area.
4:09 am
so, you know, they just don't want to let this one go. and there was one member that felt as though maybe more could be done. you know, that maybe there is more outreach that they could do. and those were really the primary reasons that came up. >> okay. just one other substantive question and this is again for general counsel. the same paragraph that i was citing earlier on page 2 at the end says that the commission -- i'm paraphrasing here, the developer may terminate its obligations under the section 9.07 which approval shall not be unreasonably -- and i'm going to skip over withheld and go to "condition." shall not be "reasonably conditioned." so if we wanted to place a
4:10 am
condition on our actions, could it be, for example, we will terminate the obligation for a grocery space, conditioned on further good-faith efforts for a food and beverage offering that is neighborhood serving, preferably affordable, and possibly quick served or with some grocery-like components. >> commissioner rosales, (indiscernible) i think that you ought to take a look at that sentence and phrase in the context of the whole provision. which is focused on the grocery efforts, the good-faith efforts
4:11 am
to find a grocer. the reference to terms that are acceptable to the developer, the reference to commercial reasonable terms, all related to grocer. it's got nothing to do with other types of uses. so conditioning, and actions -- conditioning the developers use of this space on a different type of use with different factors that are inconsistent with this provision i think raised some questions. so i think that you have to take a look at what it means to be reasonable in the context of trying to find a grocer and whether or not any conditions or delay or refusal to release the termination are reasonable in that context. and it's obviously a factual matter as to what -- what is the basis for the withholding,
4:12 am
whether conditions or the delay, but as i read it has to relate to the efforts to find a grocer and not some other use. >> commissioner rosales: because we're now getting a motion, so can we then put in a condition, if i'm understanding council morales what you are saying, if the motion is to approve to terminate but with a condition related to a grocery? because that as you said that's what this is about. this is what this issue is about. we can do that. so i can -- commissioner rosales
4:13 am
to have a condition to a motion -- a motion to terminate on the condition that the developer use -- yeah, continue through good-faith effort to find a grocer. can we do that? or for grocery use, instead of food and beverage, as she was suggesting. >> i would just -- once again it's a factual matter but what that would be is a delay in the approval of the termination and the question would be is there a factual basis for that delay, is there a reasonable basis for that delay in light of the efforts that you've heard made by the developer to find a grocer. so you're proposing the same,
4:14 am
and it's your prerogative to decide how you're going to vote. and it appears that you would be delaying the action and evaluated as to whether or not there's a reasonable basis for the delay based upon everything that's happened since this issue first came up which now goes back in terms of the efforts to find a grocer. so i would just pose it, is it reasonable to delay it additional time. and, once again, looking at the context of the whole obligation and the reference to the developer's discretion to determine that the -- there's an acceptable grocery tenant. acceptable to the lead developer. based upon the commercially reasonable terms. those are, you know, an
4:15 am
objective standard of what is appropriate to them, what is appropriate in the business context, that gives the developer a fair amount of discretion to determine what would be reasonable. >> so can i ask you, so if we terminate this, so there's this space that's there, what is our -- what is the commission's -- i guess jurisdiction to determine the type of businesses that they will retain for that space if we terminate the grocery requirements? >> well, the commission through its adoption, you know, going way back to the redevelopment agency commission, its approval of the trans-bay redevelopment
4:16 am
plan and the approval of the design and development controls for this has set zoning requirements for the type of use. there's a definition of what neighborhood use means. so you have already approved that, albeit in a very broad, broad way. so i think that what the commission could ask for would be a report back on what use was -- has been decided by the developer. but other than that, and, obviously, you could possibly determine that -- or consider whether or not that use meets the redevelopment plan and the development control standards for zoning, you have that as the staff also looks to that to determine whether or not -- what is being proposed meets the zoning requirements. so you could get a report back from the developer. but in terms of approval of a particular use that falls within
4:17 am
that broader category, the agency by contract did not impose that, and that would be a new -- a new obligation that you would have to negotiate with the developer and -- >> because it's the same thing, you know, they were approached by whole foods so they were basically -- they were basically relying on whole foods as a potential client. and that has changed, obviously. so there's -- i'm trying to find a way wherein we still keep our promise or get them to keep their promise to have a grocery in the area, in the building. commissioner bust bustos. >> vice-chair bustos: hello? okay. so, look, do we have a motion on the floor yet? okay. all right. so you understand our frustration, hopefully.
4:18 am
you see where we're coming from and hopefully the community understands our frustration. we share it with you. i think that we're trying to fit a square into a circle at this point because of where we're at. and i remember that when we had an issue with -- it may have been maynar or some other developer where we said, look, seek to do the right thing because this is probably not the last project that you're going to want to do in the city and we're a small city and people talk, commissioners talk. and so, you know, i think that for related -- i mean, obviously as you know, it's very critical last time about this, but i think that you want to do the right thing and i think that you -- this is not the last project that you'll probably want to do in the city or even in the bay area, right?
4:19 am
so -- and then i want to reimpicize that maybe we need -o work together because there's a joint obligation to one another and i think we have an overall obligation to the people that were building these things for folks to live in. so i would move that we go with zach's request and we approve the motion, or what's been asked of us, but that we just -- that we follow-up with conversations with other people and that we hope that related -- and your partners, your non-profit partners, seek to understand what we're getting at. and that, you know, there are people that are going to be
4:20 am
living in this area that need food that is affordable. and i don't know how long this sort of bubble is going to go on for, you know, things ebb and flow as we saw in 2000. so i think that, you know, we need to really work hard. so i move that we approve this item and with the -- with the follow-up items of talking with planning and other developers in that area to do what we would want. >> chair mondejar: okay, commissioner bustos is saying that i feel as commissioners we need to take some of the responsibility and not just look at the developer, we do need to get with the planning commission.
4:21 am
and we do need to get the city to do what we're asking you only to do. and i think that it's a part of our fault too. something that we need to go back to as you say, something that used to happen where the commission would sit with the planning committee. so i'm in agreement that we need to move on and -- but we need to move on in thought of getting more involved with the planning of this. are you seconding the motion? >> yes, i second the motion, thank you. >> chair mondejar: commissioner singh. >> commissioner singh: yes, i just want to know if we cannot have a grocery store there, what could we have for the other use of these places? >> our focus will be pivoting towards a food and beverage concept and other related
4:22 am
services. we're not necessarily looking for another bank or another space that is inactive during the evening and weekend. really to serve the residents as opposed to those who are just working there from 9:00 to 5:00 from monday through friday. >> thank you. >> chair mondejar: we have a motion that has been -- that is on the floor and seconded by commissioner bustos. >> can i speak to the motion? >> chair mondejar: commissioner rosales. >> commissioner rosales: i would be to vote against the motion because i think that with all due respect and love for the recommendation, that is essentially what the city has typically done in these kind of situations over and over and over in my experience, and i'm going on more than three decades with experience. so if we're going to have a
4:23 am
conversation with planning i would want to know first what possibilities there are before taking a vote on this. and i would like to know what opportunities are there. and one minute the terminal is open, and then i'd be interested in understanding whether there is an alternative within -- within our governmental reach, whether it's planning or whether it's translink terminal. because that gives us i think a better way of -- a path forward and we would want i think -- and i don't see related as objecting as kind of them having almost like a public/private partnership conversation about how we, the commission, gets in my view the benefit of this bargain. because it was offered.
4:24 am
the grocery concept was offered to us. i have a very clear recollection i know that you were not on the commission, commissioner bustos, and i thought that it was the greatest thing ever. and i exercised my discretion in favor of related -- not just because of the money because, frankly, i care less about the mobbmoneybut more about the gro. and both are important because it's a grocery concept and i thought that it is great. we are creating a neighborhood, we have to have neighborhoods serving uses and offerings, grocery stores, whether i like whole foods or not. i shop there, it doesn't matter, it was something, right? so my view is that we're not getting the benefit of our bargain if wees pass your motion, commissioner bustos. i would like to have an understanding of what is available to us before we go there. i have a different motion. so my vote is no. >> chair mondejar: would you
4:25 am
like to amend the motion, commissioner rosales. >> commissioner rosales: i would like to ask the council what -- if i'm hearing from commissioner rosales that she wants more time to have a conversation with our city partners. obviously, we want to not go too long but it would involve probably a director -- we would have to set up some other meeting, right, or something like that. >> commissioner bustos, getting the information from the planning department and scheduling a joint meeting is totally appropriate. whether it is reasonable to delay this matter pending a report from -- from essentially what amounts to third parties who are not involved in this contract, this contract is between o.c.i. and this
4:26 am
developer, it would be a question of concern to me because it's not something that either o.c.i. or this developer can really control what these other parties will say. (please stand by)
4:27 am
>> i was appointed and i waited almost 20 years for an affordable grocer. to me this is also not just personal but also because of the needs of the community and having woodlands doesn't address the need. we need to form competition to a very high-priced grocery store.
4:28 am
i still have difficulty in voting for termination. let me go general council about continuing. continuing this motion maybe for a very short period of time, 30 days. and let me no what other efforts can be taken considering talking to and we have that opportunity. president and commissioners, just to remind you we are operating under a contractual provision that lays out the standard for the commission to
4:29 am
release the obligation. it's not an absolute right the oci has to require a grocer and a lot of the conversation appears to be in the vein as if you did. whatever action you take, must being viewed in the context of this provision which provides you essentially can only delay or disapprove this release of the obligation on reasonable terms. >> continuing 30 days isn't roundtable. >> the developer request the release a year ago and there's been status reports over the vancouverment to what was going developer to what was going on and there was additional request by the commissioner for more outreach and good faith efforts. i think you have to look at all
4:30 am
that in the context whether a further delay before weather it be 30 days or 60 days is reasonable. at any point in time since the developer requested a release from the obligation, we could have engaged the planning department or other governmental entities in this question. it is oath now it's come up at the low-last movement. without trying to answer the question factually, i'm just pointing out the context of this action must be viewed in terms of what the contract says you're allowed to do and whether there's a reasonable basis to further dray. i think that raises -- delay. i think that raises some concerns the developer has pointed out both in writing and in testimony before this commission. >> and if i may, i see bill
4:31 am
whittey would also like it speak but if i can add a bit. strategic economics were added at the last meeting and look at other city agencies as it relates to cities and that information is available to us in terms of the authority it's temporarily closed. that's ongoing. as far as i know they lead up to 50%. there's still ongoing because of the calendar and temporary calendar i don't know if we'll get anything out of them because leasing as far as i understand has slowed. my point is some of the new information in terms of city wide or the cities we've been talking about in terms of land use that's had discussions on retail, those have been ongoing and the data exists and it kind of compliments what's being
4:32 am
asked of here but in terms of the authority it would take a long time. they could tell you where they are today but can't with certainty affirm they wanted as far as i know, i know i had seen a grocery store as a likely tenant for that building. but again but people want to see them open. with that i see madame chair. >> mr. whittey. >> if i may, chair and commissioners. i want to make a personal comment. i know it hasn't been said this way and intended but there's a sense i get we have been hiding the ball and not really trying as hard as we might and i take exception to that. i'm not saying you said that but
4:33 am
i take exception to that and i'd like to address something commissioner bustos said because a greed with everything he said. i came to san francisco in 1981 and worked in which he commissioner and we have been doing a lot of work on the affordable housing side for a long time and related say long-term owner. many forprofit developers build and sell. there's nothing wrong with that. it's perfectly legal. we don't. we still own the paramount that open end 2001 and have done 20% affordable throughout the city even when we didn't have to. we're going to be here a long time and commissioner bustos is right, if we're viewed an irresponsible excellent it won't bode well for us.
4:34 am
i don't know others that do affordable housing in addition to us that still owns them. we opened low-income housing we still own. we're refinancing with our non-profit partner. we bought and renovated four public housing projects under the rad program. two in the western addition and two in hunters point. that's who we are. we're not going away and we appreciate the frustration but i can't say it strongly enough, we didn't know want to have a grocer here. it made sense. it would have been good for us selfishly as well as the larger community. we came up with a site plan with the paseo they would be neighborhood-serving users. won't get a destination user and
4:35 am
we made a point in the interdufting the plan it was for the community. we had to close a $600 million financing four months after the millennium story broke four months away. we lad to convince lenders and investors, we're four blocks from that. we have soil issues not that they also did. a big tower. that was not easy. this has been a complicated challenging financing end project. we accept that. that's on us. all i'm saying is we are long-term owners in san francisco. we'll continue to be long-term owners and i suspect there are a number of things we can do to help get the types of things we're talking about. it's not our fault they screwed up the transbay terminal and it's closed bep . we had nothing to do with that. we agree with you.
4:36 am
it's frustrating to us too. we told stories to lenders and investors about things that haven't happened for reasons beyond our control. because we're long-term owners as katie can tell you with our other non-profit partnerships we do a lot in the community in terms of community-serving uses and things of that natural. i don't mean to belabor the point but i too am frustrate. we have a track record for the agency to look at or partner or any neighborhoods we operate in in. i think you'll see we are good partner. we don't view our responsibility in the dda. we're not stopping here whether you approve this or not. once we go, we're now long-term others. we're a stakeholder in the community. 27% of our residents are affordable. we have four partnership with
4:37 am
tndc and two with ccdc. one with mercy housing. i think we understand the issues your raising and want to be able to address them long term. i'll just say that. >> thank you, mr. whittey. i'm sorry if you feel we are implying you have not done your best or taken efforts. what i'm trying to do is to find a way for you, for related to keep its promise of having a grocery in the area. i'm trying to find a way that this could happen. i remember when i was in your office with commissioner rosales and the first time we talked about groceries and the type of grocery stores. it's the first time i heard of the community market and a went there after our meeting to check it out. i was interested in the type of grocery that could be at your
4:38 am
building. so as i said i'm disappointed that you're thinking we are saying you're not making good faith efforts. i'm just trying to find a way for all of us to keep the promise we made to the community. since we are about serving the community and we're about making sure the needs are provided to a community that we're building and that's really what my point is. so, i don't have any more. do you have another comment? we can go to a vote? we have a motion. there's no condition to the motion it seems like. madame secretary, can you call the vote, please? >> well, the conditions is on us to make sure -- >> but that's not part of the
4:39 am
motion. >> i want to emphasize we need to figure out how to make this work in the area. >> i understand. i'm talking about the motion on the floor you proposed and seconded by commissioner scott. >> if we had a competing motion would we have to vote on this motion before i introduce the second one? >> yes. >> this is the only motion on the table. i would ask the motion be restated so everyone is clear what they're voting on. we have to vote on this motion before another commissioner can put forth a compete oing or sec motion. >> that's correct. >> the motion was to approve staff's recommendation that we lift the restrictions and in
4:40 am
that motion i discussed we should have conversations with our counterparts in planning and maybe there's an opportunity with your friends in the developer world that we could look to other places in the area. i would appreciate that. i believe that was my motion. >> basically the motion is to approve resolution 40-2019. >> that's correct. >> seconded by commissioner scott. am i correct. madame secretary, please call the vote. >> commissioner members please announce your votes when i call your name.
4:41 am
>> clerk: madame chair, the vote is 3 ayes and 2 nays. >> the motion carries. how does that affect the second motion by commissioner rosales? that means you want to propose that. >> if there's a related motion that's not inconsistent with this one it could be undertaken but any motion inconsistent with the just passed motion would require recision of the motion that just passed. >> thank you. madame secretary, please call the next item. >> the next order of business is item 5, matters of new business. excuse me, the next order of business is the regular agenda
4:42 am
item 5b authorize contract with a delaware limited liability company for arbitrage, consulting service in an amount not to exceed $116,390. discussion and action resolution 5-2019. madame director. >> thank you. john daigle will be presenting on this item. >> >> thank you, good afternoon. madame chair, members of the commission, my name is john daigle the senior financial analyst and debt major for ocii.
4:43 am
agenda item 5b authorizes the contract with blx group for bond arbitrage consulting services. since this is something we don't deal with every day and kind of arcane, i have a brief explanation of what arbitrage. first of this is an irs requirement and require bond arbitrage earnings be paid to the u.s. treasury. bond arbitrage earnings occur when funds are invest at a higher rate than that at which they're borrowed. if a bond is issued at 3% interest rate, we pay 3% for the money and turn around and take the bond proceeds on a tax-exempt bond and invest the
4:44 am
money at 5%, we would then have earned 2% of arbitrage. understo in other words, we're making money and what the arbitrage rebate the purpose sto keep us from doing that at the treasurer's expense, borrowing tax-exempt taxable and making money. they passed a series of regulations which is what we're complying with here. the calculations are required every five years or upon the final maturity of the bond or refunding. issuers almost always hire a specialized consultant to perform the calculations to ensure they're properly done.
4:45 am
the scope is to calculate the bond earnings and repair reports for the outstanding ab recently matured or refunded bonds. there's three parts to this. legal and regulatory analysis which will be specific to each bond to some degree and requires extensive review of documents and perhaps consultation with the bond councils and tax council involved. there's data collection which will fall on staff and we'll have to go back many years and look at all the expenditures down to the specific dates they're made for bonds and blx will help us in doing this. and then the rebate calculations themselves which will be performed by blx.
4:46 am
>> can you speak a little louder please. pull the mic to your mouth. >> sorry. blx was chosen in accordance with our policies using a competitive process. our policies allow to us select from a competitively established city panel. in this case the panel was established by the office of public finance may 11, 2018. we selected blx group basically because of their prior performance and the staff depth and regulatory knowledge. at this point i'd hoped to introduce a representative but due to a conflict they were unable to attend.
4:47 am
>> and the budget for the contract and it's for $16,390. the break down of that is there in the contract budget in exhaustive detail basically very long list of bonds and estimate for each one. and the contract will expire december 31st, 2021. with that i conclude my presentation and invite any question or comments. thank you. >> is there a representative from blx group here? >> sorry, that's the part i perhaps didn't get close enough to the microphone. they had hoped but were unable to be. >> thank you. do we have speaker cards, madame secretary? >> clerk: yes, we have ace washington. >> i'll now close public comment
4:48 am
and refer to my commission members or comments or questions on this matter. hearing none, thank you, m mr. daigle. i need a motion. moved by commissioner bustos. seconded by commissioner singh. madame secretary, can you please take the roll call. >> clerk: commission members, when i call your name respond. [roll call] >> clerk: madame chair, the vote is five ayes. >> motion carry, please call the next item. >> clerk: the next order of business is item 6, public comment on non-agenda items. i have a couple of speaker cards. i have michael lasina.
4:49 am
>> madame secretary, chair mondejar, commissioners. my name is michael lasina the chair of the fillmore heritage voices council. >> can you please -- >> our homeowners association found it necessary to form the commit to -- committee to address the commercial parcel at 1330 fillmore street formerly known as yoshi's. as you may know, our homes are located at 1310 fillmore and are attached at the hip to the
4:50 am
commercial parcel. the reason we are here is because there have been numerous meetings both public and private regarding the sale and use of the parcel from which we have either been included or input has been minimized. we're here to correct that and obtain a voice in the process. the homeowners of fillmore heritage center are physically and financially and emotionally tied to the commercial parcel. physically we share the corridors and adjoining walls. financially we share the common areas and maintenance dues and because what happens at this parcel has a significant impact on our well being. so i'm sure the ocii commission members here today are not surprised we are here today to stand up and make our voices heard in the wake of the brutal killing that happened march 23rd just steps from our front door.
4:51 am
the shooting death as well as tragic injuries made us question our safety and security and galvanized to wake up and speak up as community stakeholders. as long standing members we're aware of the significance of the history of the neighborhood. some of us invested in the original community benefit by making monetary contributions such as purchasing life time memberships in the now closed heritage museum and gallery. the entrance now which bears the scars. as permanent stakeholders we choose to invest here and we choose to continue to live here. my statement's almost done. however, i do not feel invited or embraced, far from it.
4:52 am
it's believed the process of the rfp to sell the commercial parcel has been less than transparent. this is evidenced by an ongoing lawsuit the process of the long-time community members and others believe. this lack of transparency seems to be the case with assignment of recently expired lease for the commercial parcel and propose renewal of the lease as the interim activation activator. finally and most importantly, we the fillmore heritage center home others and you the ocii as the successor to san francisco redevelopment are legally bound as real estate entities by the reciprocal agreement to increase our reserve fund and it was blocked by this language and the reciprocal easement agreement and such action affirms our bond
4:53 am
with the city and ocii. therefore it is only right and just we should have a co-equal voice in the disposition of the parcel and insist on an experienced operator who is in immediate possession of sufficient resource to maintain current payment of all requires common access areas. >> thank you very much. do we have any other speaker cards, madame secretary? >> clerk: ace washington. >> it's impressive i'm here to hear from the association. let me start by dedicating this to marvin gaye. the song means a lot to fillmore.
4:54 am
♪ oh, mercy, mercy me ♪ things aren't what they used to be in the fillmore street ♪ ♪ and i wanted to to the she historical part ♪ >> this association is called the homeowners association. y'all look so very important and he said and i'm here talking about the fillmore and i don't want to get emotional because i want to hear what i got to say, damn it. my name is ace and i'm on the case mr. homeowners association. i was there before they broke grounds there mr. homeowners association. if you are up here trying to say something about in my community it's as well as yours, i am
4:55 am
thef theful -- fillmore corridor ambassador. i'm here just like you and the homeowners association. i want to know what in the hell's going on in the fillmore? i support what he said but in a different way. i've been coming up here many a days. your director told me in a letter that when governor brown was the governor. i'm not holding all responsibilities on you and i'm not holding responsibilities in what happened in the tragic death. but in my book it's called game changers. the people that look like me are called the act of god. it's also called see change. see, now we're going have to save the city and county and not all y'all, the valley and district 5. everybody will be accountable.
4:56 am
hoa, i'm right along with you. my name is ace and i've been known case. and what we'll eventually have to do is go up to sacramento and talk to governor newsom. see, he's right. there's lawsuits on that one little building and i'm hoping for 20 seconds more because the time is going to go out. but you must be aware of the lawsuits. you have the city and county suing downstairs and i work downstairs in the federal government there with the parking garage. my name is ace, dammit and i'm on this case. i'm telling you like the fillmore tenants' association, we're going to ask for a town hall meeting to find out what the hell's going on. all the department heads have to come down and see what's going upon over a year ago, sir, i went and there was nobody there. now you have every department in here from the city attorney's
4:57 am
office. slow down, ace. you're getting emotional. this is what i want to portray to y'all. i'm in the here to criticize but analyze. there's been misrepresentation. not y'all, we don't want it to run up to the queen b, london breed but they have to stop at district 5. my name is ace, damn it and i've been on the case since '95. no, i'm just kidding. >> thank you. are there any more speaker cards madame secretary? >> >> clerk: no speaker cards. >> call the next item. >> clerk: the next item is item 7 report of the chair. >> i have no reports. >> clerk: the next order of business is 8, report of the executive director. item 8k the intent to issue the
4:58 am
consultant to provide off-site management and administrative research to the hunters shipyard committee and hunters point shipyard redevelopment area and bayview-hunters point redevelopment area. discussion, madame. >> this item is a request to issue rfp. >> in the interest of time it doesn't come in front of us this often. it's the site office created since '95 and they provide support services and the contract expires this fiscal year. i think what's interesting is the work they do which is much more robust than other projects because we're still in the beginning phases. it includes six meetings a month including subcommittee meetings and outreach and so on. if you're interested in getting
4:59 am
more specifics and would like it share but there's also a form of the rfp in the proposal. >> good afternoon. i'm >> i'm the project manager. nadia gave a high-level summary of the rfp and it's to provide administrative support services an outreach services. many have been out to the site office at 451 galvez right when you enter the shipyard. it's the ambassador building located on a public open space. i just want to go over quickly the rfps and scope of services. we've been going out every three years for the rfp. the project area services generally cover overseeing the security badging program for the shipyard which is a really
5:00 am
important function and they work with resident, artists and the artists and the others to make sure they have adequate badging to enter the site and assist in overall management of the galvez where many come to find out before housing. they're the first phase community engagement when they come to the site and assist overall project information. the other big scope is providing support to the cac. that's a very huge task. we have six meetings a month and sometimes we have more than six meetings a month and sometimes we have less when they get cancelled. we have navy meetings and the